Armstrong on Landis and 'hypocritical' fans.
aurelio_-_banned
Posts: 1,317
Ok, so it's 'another' thread relating to Armstrong, the 4th I have posted since I joined this forum (sorry!), but I can't let the comments he made today regarding Landis pass by as they show just how amoral his attitude really is. I quote:
"Sometimes I get frustrated with people who criticize his return, and then what, they're going to sign up and cheer when David Millar returns? It's the same thing. You've served your suspension, let's get back on the bike and race," he said, using the EPO-confession of the British star as evidence of the fans' hypocrisy.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... /jan24news
What? There is no difference between, on the one hand, consistently lying despite definitive evidence proving that you have doped, dragging the sport through the mud for years on end, spinning ridiculous anti-French conspiracy theories and trying to undermine the efforts of the sport's governing bodies and labs to control doping, and on the other hand admitting that one has doped, expressing regret and saying that one was wrong to do so? :roll:
No wonder Armstrong doesn't feel any sense of guilt about the way he 'won' his Tours. His general attitude seems to be not so much 'You might as well win' as 'You might as well lie'. No wonder he is apparently looking to develop a career in politics! I think that the following quote could be held to be equally relevant to both Mr. Landis and Mr. Armstrong...
As the Marion Jones saga proved conclusively, a cheating athlete is a compulsive liar. Confronted by the evidence and faced by a world of suspicion, they will look you in the eye and swear that they are clean. They are deeply dysfunctional people, immersed in a moral universe where cheating is validated by their peers and vindicated by the medals around their necks.
Valeriy Borchin, you can be sure, celebrated his medal without a shred of guilt, among peers who wouldn't even question how he did it. Physically they are supremely healthy human beings; morally they are sick to the core.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-s ... 57560.html
"Sometimes I get frustrated with people who criticize his return, and then what, they're going to sign up and cheer when David Millar returns? It's the same thing. You've served your suspension, let's get back on the bike and race," he said, using the EPO-confession of the British star as evidence of the fans' hypocrisy.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... /jan24news
What? There is no difference between, on the one hand, consistently lying despite definitive evidence proving that you have doped, dragging the sport through the mud for years on end, spinning ridiculous anti-French conspiracy theories and trying to undermine the efforts of the sport's governing bodies and labs to control doping, and on the other hand admitting that one has doped, expressing regret and saying that one was wrong to do so? :roll:
No wonder Armstrong doesn't feel any sense of guilt about the way he 'won' his Tours. His general attitude seems to be not so much 'You might as well win' as 'You might as well lie'. No wonder he is apparently looking to develop a career in politics! I think that the following quote could be held to be equally relevant to both Mr. Landis and Mr. Armstrong...
As the Marion Jones saga proved conclusively, a cheating athlete is a compulsive liar. Confronted by the evidence and faced by a world of suspicion, they will look you in the eye and swear that they are clean. They are deeply dysfunctional people, immersed in a moral universe where cheating is validated by their peers and vindicated by the medals around their necks.
Valeriy Borchin, you can be sure, celebrated his medal without a shred of guilt, among peers who wouldn't even question how he did it. Physically they are supremely healthy human beings; morally they are sick to the core.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-s ... 57560.html
0
Comments
-
If you believe "a cheating athlete is a compulsive liar" how does that square logically with your support of David Millar in this very thread?0
-
I agree that Millar, at least for a while, denied that he had doped. However, I don't recall him spinning anti-French conspiracy stories, attacking the testing labs and so on, as have Landis and Armstrong. Also, he did eventually admit to what he had done and has spoken out against doping since.stagehopper wrote:If you believe "a cheating athlete is a compulsive liar" how does that square logically with your support of David Millar in this very thread?
There are also plenty of other riders who have come clean about doping far more readily than did Millar, and it seems Armstrong thinks such riders deserve no more respect and 'forgiveness' than riders like Landis who continue to lie and to treat the fans and other riders at though they were 'fools'. (As Bradley Wiggins said of Landis when he continued to deny that he doped, despite all those positive IRMS tests).
It is clear that Armstrong thinks that a rider deserves absolutely no credit for coming clean about doping, and deserves no criticism for failing to do so, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. This is entirely in line with his long-standing hostility to anyone or anything that undermines cycling’s traditional doping ‘omerta’. Witness the way he bullied riders like Bassons and Simeoni and has even gone out of his way to influence the editorial policy of the supposedly independent press. (For example, look at the way the UCI and Armstrong have together managed to persuade the owners of l'Equipe to agree to print no more doping related stories other than those reporting confirmed positives from the likes of the UCI themselves*).
* http://www.lesdessousdusport.fr/l-equip ... opage-2829
* http://www.hbvl.be/nieuws/media_cultuur ... a982222%7D0 -
Armstrong is an American and should be burned
No evidence that would stand up in a Court is required.
Millar however is simply a naive British boy perverted by the evil Americans and therefore acceptable
After all just loo at how Tom Simpson is referred to as a "great rider" despite the dramatic proof that he abused drugs to enhance performance!
There should be a clear verifiable system that treats all alike - either ban proven drug cheats or rehabilitate them not just the ones you like or don't like!<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
This debate has been doing the rounds on one forum, since Friday. The posts falling into two catagories.
a) That there is no difference between Millar and Landis. Reasons offered include Millar's confession being made under duress and being limited, to the hypothesis that he's still doping, because he rode at SD.
Counter doping argument is Millar's sub Voekler palmares since his return!
b) There is some heiracy of "forgiveness", from fans, loosely based upon the amount given up by the individual's confession.
Runs something like:- Jorge Jackshe, Millar, Basso.....then Tyler Landis.
I had always thought Millar and Armstrong were "pals", so I'm thinking LA's barb was directed as much at Vaughters as it was a plea for Flandis.
He has to support Flandis as he's steadfastly toed the party line and he knows the truth, whatever that is."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Armstrong is an American and should be burned
No evidence that would stand up in a Court is required.
Millar however is simply a naive British boy perverted by the evil Americans and therefore acceptable
After all just look at how Tom Simpson is referred to as a "great rider" despite the dramatic proof that he abused drugs to enhance performance!
There should be a clear verifiable system that treats all alike - either ban proven drug cheats or rehabilitate them not just the ones you like or don't like!
Tell that to the Italians and Spanish. They get the roughest "hang 'em high" treatment around here.
I know it was Aurelio who started the thread, but it's really not about Armstrong per se, but FLandis and Millar. :shock:
Should a rider who is an unrepentant doper, get the same reception upon returning to the sport, as one who made a confession and now speaks out publically against the practice?
Is there a difference between these characters?
These are the question up for debate."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
:roll:Cunobelin wrote:Armstrong is an American and should be burned
For a rider to be sanctioned doping only needs to be proved to the 'comfortable satisfaction' of the panel. If all the evidence against Armstrong had come to light under the present rules, he would almost certainly have been found guilty, even with his powerful friends in the UCI trying to protect him.Cunobelin wrote:No evidence that would stand up in a Court is required.
There are also many cases were riders have been prevented from riding simply because suspicions of doping exist. Just look how Ullrich and co were prevented from riding the Tour because of their suspected links to Operation Puerto.
(I wonder how that happened, given that they were not 'Americans'. :roll: :roll: ).
:roll: :roll: :roll:Cunobelin wrote:Millar however is simply a naive British boy perverted by the evil Americans and therefore acceptable
I don't recall ever arguing that Simpson should be remembered as a particularly "great rider" whilst at the same time ignoring his use of stimulants. However, doubtless Armstrong would still be regarded as a "great rider" as well, even if he came clean about how he achieved his Tour 'wins'. After all, he wouldn't be telling us anything we don't already know.Cunobelin wrote:After all just loo at how Tom Simpson is referred to as a "great rider" despite the dramatic proof that he abused drugs to enhance performance!0 -
Exactly. I would say 'no' and 'yes' respectively. Clearly Armstrong is one who would say the opposite.Blazing Saddles wrote:Should a rider who is an unrepentant doper, get the same reception upon returning to the sport, as one who made a confession and now speaks out publically against the practice?Is there a difference between these characters These are the question up for debate.0 -
Deleted double post.0
-
Its clear that some of these French labs have their own agenda, so I would characterise what you call 'conspiracy theories' more as 'reasonable doubts'.
To name a few examples: the 'strategic timing' of their repeatedly leaked test results (a practice the UCI has publicly condemned), serious quality control failings (as evidenced in the Landis case), the Armstrong EPO witch hunt (entirely discredited in court).
That aside Aurelio's point is fair if basically redundant. If you are cheating and remain undetected, of course you are lying about it.
Its the cheating that is material, not the words spoken before and after. This appies equally to Mr Millar and Mr Landis.
This is why Armstrong was right in his statements. Break the rules, serve the sentence and then rejoin (cycling) society.
In broader civilised society we take pride in ongoing efforts to rehabilitate.
I'm saddened by this 'new puritanism' in sport which is being spearheaded in cycling.
It seems to be lead by cowardly fanatics who take more pleasure from persecuting others than celebrating the achievement of others.
Thankfully we also have brave leaders in society who have the courage to speak out publicly against these injustices.
This despite an increasingly sensationalist, populist and 'tabloid' mainstream cycling press, sadly the UK element being among the leading antagonists (Cycling Weekly, Cycle Sport plus certain well-known newspaper columnists).0 -
Nonsense on every count! Still, given the power of Armstrongs misinformation/ PR machine it is no wonder that these myths keep on circulating.scottfrasernz wrote:Its clear that some of these French labs have their own agenda, so would characterise what you call 'conspiracy theories' more as 'reasonable doubts'.
To name a few examples: the 'strategic timing' of their repeatedly leaked test results (a practice the UCI has publicly condemned), serious quality control failings (as evidenced in the Landis case), the Armstrong EPO witch hunt (entirely discredited in court).
With regards the 'leaking' of test results and so on, if you will do a little research you will find that these leaks usually came from within the UCI themselves. For example, it was the UCI's own medical director who provided Damien Ressiot with Armstrong's doping control forms, so allowing the link to be made between those 1999 positives for Epo and Armstrong himself.
The 'serious quality failings' you speak of in relation to Landis were in reality minor examples of sloppy housekeeping, non of which undermined the credibility of those IRMS tests that proved beyond doubt that Landis doped.
As to the court case relating to Armstrong’s Epo positives. These tests were not ‘discredited’. Rather the case was closed simply because it ran out of time, mainly because those called to give evidence, such as the notorious doping doctor and Armstrong's 'trainer', Michale Ferrari, refused to supply the requested documentation. In fact even the UCI's own doping expert has recently said that he has no doubt that those Epo positives were valid.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u ... gpair=auto0 -
Scott, how did you feel about Ricco getting caught at the Tour? I seem to recall there was widespread delight hereabouts. Well, he was caught by a French lab and the French anti doping agency using the new CERA test - which the UCI refused to use for retro testing of the Giro samples. If the French have an agenda - which seems to be a commitment to the fight against doping - then the UCI's agenda is clearly to uphold omerta.
And just a word about the 'Armstrong witch hunt' - this has never been discredited in court as you claim (in fact Armstrong has quietly dropped the majority of his libel actions and never sued Equipe) but the samples were questioned by the Vrijman report which was rubbished by WADA largely on the grounds that Vrijman is a great friend of ex-UCI boss Verbruggen and was therefore fatally compromised. All this is a matter of public record and, whichever side of the doping debate you fall, is well worth being acquainted with.
The bottom line on Armstrong and Landis is that Landis knows the truth - and went on record as saying Armstrong doped (will try and find the link for this - was an American magazine interview and someone else may be able to provide it). I'm no great fan of Millar and find his whole holier than thou stance too sanctimonious for words (especially when he signed for S-D) but agree that the culture has to change from one of unrepentance to one where a confession is rewarded by a reduced ban - or the 2 year ban stands for a confession and a 4 year ban is the punishment for upholding omerta.0 -
There is so much that is wrong-headed with this that it's hard to know where to start! You talk of 'rehabilitation' but it is accepted that the first stage in any 'rehabilitation' program is for the individual to freely admit their 'guilt' and to genuinely accept that were wrong to act as they did. People like Landis and Armstrong clearly see nothing wrong in doping, and in turn are never going to admit that they were in the wrong.scottfrasernz wrote:Its the cheating that is material, not the words spoken before and after. This appies equally to Mr Millar and Mr Landis. This is why Armstrong was right in his statements. Break the rules, serve the sentence and then rejoin (cycling) society. In broader civilised society we take pride in ongoing efforts to rehabilitate.
A failure to accept that what one did was unacceptable, and to even deny that one is guilty in the first place, is the defining characteristic of the anti-social, essential 'criminal' mindset. Look up some material on the JUDEX scale ('Justification, Denial, Excuses') as discussed in Geoffrey Stephenson's book The Psychology of Criminal Justice. (This is why, for example, parole is not generally available to those who continue to deny their guilt).
You argue that it is ones actions before being caught which matter, not the words which one says afterwards. I wonder? Would you feel the same way about someone who ran down and seriously injured or killed a cyclist and who was genuinely remorseful and consciously tried to drive with greater care in the future, and someone who didn't care in the slightest about the harm they had caused, carrying on just as before, on the basis all that matters is that both caused harm and had served the same sentence?
Also, the words of people like Landis do matter, as his attacks on the testing labs and so on play straight into the hands of those who continue to dope.0 -
I'm gonna join in about Millar...
Micron, you say that joining SD counts against him given his sanctimony. But given the prevailing culture, what was he supposed to do? Unless there's some indication that other, less suspicious protour teams, were willing to employ him then it may have been the only way for him to get back into the peloton? cycling is a hard place for outspoken critics of doping and I'm tempted to view his time at SD as an unfortunate but probably necessary stepping stone on his way to Garmin?
I'm open minded/ serious about this though. if he chose SD over a cleaner environment, I would quickly come round to your position!0 -
Note there is only one French lab, the AFLD in Chatenay-Malabry. As Aurelio says, more the "leaks" were actually investigative journalism and owe themselves to UCI bungling rather than a mole inside the lab. This sounds to me like the classic "with us or against us" ploy with attempts to whip up anti-French sentiment as a way to get supporters to unite in fear of the French, rather than ask questions about Landis, Armstrong and many others.scottfrasernz wrote:Its clear that some of these French labs have their own agenda, so would characterise what you call 'conspiracy theories' more as 'reasonable doubts'.
I remember that Landis joined Phonak in part because he fell out with Armstrong and had to leave the US Postal squad. Landis has served his ban and can come back but given that every time his ban was reviewed, appealed and tested, he was found guilty but can't admit to this: he's behaving like an 12 year old.
I do get worried when I see Armstrong saying "Floyd might have been found guilty but at the end of the trial if you polled the people, 50 percent thought he was innocent – in regard to that it's good that he's back" because a figurehead for the sport should be supporting the likes of the UCI, WADA and CAS, rather than having to make up imaginary polls to undermine these organisations.0 -
micron wrote:Scott, how did you feel about Ricco getting caught at the Tour? I seem to recall there was widespread delight hereabouts. Well, he was caught by a French lab and the French anti doping agency using the new CERA test - which the UCI refused to use for retro testing of the Giro samples. If the French have an agenda - which seems to be a commitment to the fight against doping - then the UCI's agenda is clearly to uphold omerta.
It certainly looks that way.
Pierre B and the AFDL catch 7 riders in the CERA net doesn't equate to a ridiculous agenda/conspiracy theory, to me. More a desire to purge the sport of it's frauds.
As these "catches" have been uniformally accepted as legit, by virtually everybody, you have to then look at the UCI's track record for catching cheats.
Look at their GT net and it's virtually empty.
Are we not digressing though?
I missed out option c) because I hadn't realised there were still a lot of "believers" out there. (not found on the other forum)
Floyd was clean. More than a bit "starry eyed", IMO.
If there's a conspiracy anywhere, it can be found at the UCI's doorstep.
The AFDL results more than suggest this."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
I am not condoning doping and much less lying but given the examples provided by Kohl's and Schumacher's current situations it's surprising that any cyclist admits to doping. I understand that Kohl has been disowned by the profession and is facing fraud charges while Schumacher is about to be issued a professional license (due to the ineptitude of the relevant organisations) and is threatening to sue Quickstep if they do not honour their contract with him. Without Quickstep and with a license he'll probably end up riding for Mr Ball or someone similar anyway.
I know it will never happen but when Kohl has served his suspension, made his Millar-esque comeback and is in a breakaway, two-up sprint against his former team-mate -- I know which one I'll be cheering for (and which one I'll wonder what he's on.)
I wish I believed Tyler. I do believe Millar and hope to god he doesn't let me down (again).0 -
aurelio wrote:
With regards the 'leaking' of test results and so on, if you will do a little research you will find that these leaks usually came from within the UCI themselves. For example, it was the UCI's own medical director who provided Damien Ressiot with Armstrong's doping control forms, so allowing the link to be made between those 1999 positives for Epo and Armstrong himself.
And Ressiot had the test results how, given that they were communicated only to the French Ministry of Sport from Chatenay-Malabry? The UCI didn't provide the primary source, merely the secondary that allowed them to stand the story up and write the headline. The primary source in that story has to remain the AFLD in the guise of Chatenay-Malabry.0 -
WADA and The French Ministry of sport both released the results of the research project, and Ressiot did not go to publication until he had been provided with the necessary data via these official channels. By then of course the UCI had already provided him with the doping control forms needed to make the link with Armstrong.leguape wrote:And Ressiot had the test results how, given that they were communicated only to the French Ministry of Sport from Chatenay-Malabry? The UCI didn't provide the primary source, merely the secondary that allowed them to stand the story up and write the headline. The primary source in that story has to remain the AFLD in the guise of Chatenay-Malabry.0 -
surely Millar didn't have much of a choice about confessing seeing as they found empty EPO ampoules in his room0
-
the EPO could have been for his dog/family member, left there by a team mate/cyclist friend
or maybe he intended to dope but changed his mind and kept the empties as a memento 0 -
scottfrasernz wrote:
To name a few examples: the 'strategic timing' of their repeatedly leaked test results (a practice the UCI has publicly condemned), serious quality control failings (as evidenced in the Landis case), the Armstrong EPO witch hunt (entirely discredited in court).
.
you should inform yourself better. In Landis, the original result was 11:1 ratio, the B sample was 11:1. The re-tested samples, watched by Landis' observers, 11:1, another independent lab, 11:1. Mass isotope follow up: exogenous testosterone. What this proved is that the original lab was 100% accurate. Landis was found guilty in court, by experts. He lost his appeal. He did it.
I'm not sure what court case you are referring to, but the one against LA was settled and sealed. However, the CBC reported leaked testimony in Canada that US Postal had a very active doping program. Many people testified to this who worked with US Postal. LA did not "win" this case.0 -
KléberI do get worried when I see Armstrong saying "Floyd might have been found guilty but at the end of the trial if you polled the people, 50 percent thought he was innocent – in regard to that it's good that he's back" because a figurehead for the sport should be supporting the likes of the UCI, WADA and CAS, rather than having to make up imaginary polls to undermine these organisations.
When i read that i thought the same thing, im at pains to remmeber a handfull of people ive ever spoken to or even heard about that have even the slighest doubt that Landis doped. Maybe some hardcore fans still Believe but how does that make it a good thing his back ? Considering how PR savvy LA is, it makes you wonder why make such a dumb comment? I wonder was this question asked when he arrived at in the States, maybe he was a little rusty after his easy time of it in adelaide with our star struck mediaTake care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0 -
It's all part of Armstrong's war on 'The French' and the AFLD. After all, anything that it might be argued undermines the credibility of the AFLD (as with the criticisms that were made of their 'housekeeping' procedures in relation to Landis' T/E ratio tests) helps him to downplay the significance of those Epo positives from the 1999 Tour, which were also tested by the AFLD.richard wants a baum wrote:...im at pains to remmeber a handfull of people ive ever spoken to or even heard about that have even the slighest doubt that Landis doped. Maybe some hardcore fans still Believe but how does that make it a good thing his back ? Considering how PR savvy LA is, it makes you wonder why make such a dumb comment?0 -
Just seems a little silly to say 50percent when its probably closer to 50 in total :?Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0
-
Aurelio - what ever happened to your rather fetching avatar?
Did Armstrong's gorillas get to you too ? :shock:
(Ref: http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12599092
"Hmm, it didn`t take the `digital brownshirts` long to kill off those links, did it?")0 -
"From Lance to Landis" is available from all good bookshops, as they say.
My memory may be failing me, but I believe the CAS panel threw out the Landis T/E ratio test results due to procedural errors by the lab. So any criticism of them in that respect is perfectly valid.
From the CAS arbitration verdict:
"160. TD2004EAAS provides that the confirmation of an elevated T/E value is to be
performed in triplicate and must be done in accordance with Technical Document
TD2003IDCR, That document provides in the opening paragraph that: The
Laboratory must establish criteria for identification of a compound. Examples of
acceptable criteria are: and then it goes on to list various topics one of which is
Selected Ion Monitoring Mode. Under that heading there is this requirement:
When selected ions are monitored, at least three diagnostic ions must be acquired.
The first and second confirmation chromatograms show the acquisition of a
single diagnostic ion as was done for the screening phase; see the chromatograms
at pps 24-27. What the Lab did contravenes the Technical Document. The
Panel interprets the Technical Document 20031DCR not merely as an example
when it speaks of three diagnostic ions but a requirement. The Technical
Document requires greater precision and clarity for the Lab to be excused from
doing three diagnostic ions for testosterone because the substance is naturally
occurring in the body so the single ion can be used to identify it. If that is the
case for testosterone then the Technical Document requires more precision on
the point. Therefore, the failure to comply with the technical document leaves
the Lab results as being non-compliant with the procedures required to declare
an AAF for the T/E ratio."
He was still busted on the IRMS though. But the lab work on T/E was lax.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
aurelio wrote:
It's all part of Armstrong's war on 'The French' and the AFLD. After all, anything that it might be argued undermines the credibility of the AFLD (as with the criticisms that were made of their 'housekeeping' procedures in relation to Landis' T/E ratio tests) helps him to downplay the significance of those Epo positives from the 1999 Tour, which were also tested by the AFLD.richard wants a baum wrote:...im at pains to remmeber a handfull of people ive ever spoken to or even heard about that have even the slighest doubt that Landis doped. Maybe some hardcore fans still Believe but how does that make it a good thing his back ? Considering how PR savvy LA is, it makes you wonder why make such a dumb comment?
Or more simply, Armstrong was responding to a question about a US rider knowing that he'd be quoted in the US press. In the US, there is a strong and long history of people serving their time and being allowed to pick up where they left off. I'm not sure why people think it's a dumb comment, it's a pretty smart one that shows a clear awareness of the main audience who will hear it reported - US domestic.
Alternatively, he knows Floyd has got the photos and needs to keep him sweet. That and his need to deal with pixies that tamper with his samples.0 -
He's asking for trouble....
.....and here it is! "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
0
-
I take the context of LA and Landis but in the wider context I don't think LA is wrong in what he said because the same rule applies to anyone coming back. They've done the time and are allowed back, but they come back with no credibility and are entirely open to continuing crititicism about what they did and their conduct afterwards.
You either have a system of permanent exclusion or punish then move on; IMO a two tier system where a confession gets you time off would be open to abuse unless it's completely open book about sources and methods that can be verified. [/quote]O na bawn i fel LA0
